Not Losing

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-Orli12+Dec 28 2005, 04:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Orli12 @ Dec 28 2005, 04:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In reply to anthonys  - I think if I rowed my ass off  I would lose weight!  There would be no time to eat.  In those ships with the slave rowers  - none were fat! <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I think many of us who row to lose weight are discovering that the weight is not coming off as we had expected. Since May 1, I have rowed over 2.5 million meters and sad to say I haven't lost as much weight as I had expected. And I have modified my diet, which of course did help -- but that has nothing to do with rowing per se.<br /><br />After looking at the information on weight loss posted by C2, I noticed that it is not so much the number of metres rowed but the intensity of the row -- rowing at 800 calories per hour, for example, instead of 500. C2 recommends interval training, and since I have modified my rowing, decrease in the number of metres rowed each day, increase in the power used, I am beginning to lose more pounds. <br /><br />I posted previously the C2 links regarding weight loss -- except for John Rupp, who allegedly knows everything but believes no one -- I do think reading and applying the information provided by C2 in those links is valuable to the person who wants to lose weight.<br /><br />Mike<br />

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 21 2005, 01:11 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 21 2005, 01:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Orli,<br /><br />Your exercise sounds fine.  <br /><br />The key is your diet.  <br /><br />Losing weight depends on (1) what you eat, (2) how much you eat, (3) when you eat, and (4) your portion sizes.<br /><br />It is important to eat a diet that is relatively low in fat, meaning 10% or less calories from fat in your diet.  Avoid trans fats, that don't break down in the body.  They are the ones that are most dangerous.  Examples are lard and hydrogenated oils.  These are extremely dangerous, so don't eat any of them.  Read the labels to see that is in the foods that you eat.<br /><br />There are good fats, like avocados, and fresh ground flax seeds.<br /><br />Eat just enough calories to maintain a regular weight loss on the way to your goal weight.  Don't worry if you get off your diet now and then, just get right back on it again.  Divide your daily calories into equal small portions and spread them through the day.  The most important meal is breakfast.  Eating earlier and regularly through the day helps to ensure you are not starving and having cravings later on.  <br /><br />Avoid salt, as it stimulates cravings.<br /><br />Drink plenty of water, before, during, and after your meals.  Have the goal of drinking 1 gallon of water each day.  Again, begin drinking water in the mornings and drink most of the water by the afternoon.  Eat and drink very little in the evenings.  It is best when losing weight to not eat after 6 or 7 pm.<br /><br />There is an excellent book called, "The Rice Diet Report", which was the diet of Hans Kempner.  He used this successfully for more than 60 years getting people who weighed up to 800 pounds and more to lose weight.  The author of the book had weighed 275 pounds for years then she successfully got down to 119 and stayed there with this diet.  The calories from this diet were 700 per day.  I followed this diet 15 years ago and went from 170 (the most I have ever weighed) to 133 pounds in 4 months.  It's a good diet and it works.  I found a hard bound copy of this book in a used book store for $6.  You can probably also still find it on the internet.  All the best. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Poe john,<br /><br />It would be nice if you keep contributing this way to the forum. Constructive <br /><br />bye the way, you could use some weightgain, muscleweight I mean. Row a bit less and pick up some weighttraining. A bit more muscle would help your paces.

[[old] hjs]

[quote=John Rupp,Dec 21 2005, 01:54 AM]<br />I disagree that you need to row more intensely. <br /><br />Since you are always tired after your workouts, this tells me that you are already rowing too hard.<br /><br />As to weight loss, the speed that you row makes absolutely no difference. If you row a 10 in 33 or if you take twice that long, you are still burning about the same amount of calories, with the advantage rowing more slowly that you are burning them longer, i.e. for a greater percentage of the day. This is keeping you active for longer and, because it is easier, gets your body used to continuing this level through the day. Also you feel better, recover more quickly, are not as tired and are likely to not want to eat as much.<br /><br />Regarding drag factor, this also makes no difference for weight loss.<br /><br />I often begin my rowing with the drag factor on 220 and do the first 1/3 to 1/5 of my rowing this way. Then I move the drag factor to the lowest setting and do the rest of my rowing on there. Sometimes I do the whole session on the lowest setting. Again, this makes no difference as to weight loss, but will give you a different feeling in your muscles. I use the same 8 meters per stroke regardless of the drag factor.<br /><br />The key to weight loss is to keep your metabolism going through the day with low level exercise, and portion control of the foods that you eat, in line with the 4 points about diet made earlier.<br /><br />To stealhead <br /><br />Not the resistant but the spead is the energie using factor. The drag has nothing to do with it. <br /><br />To john<br /><br />Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. <br />Exersising at a higher level with higher hartrates keeps te body after you workout longer using energie(buring call.) But offcause you got to watch out for overtraining yourself. Watch your morningpulse. Is it coming up than your don't recuparate. You need more rest or less intense workouts.<br />

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 29 2005, 12:07 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 29 2005, 12:07 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[<br />To stealhead <br /><br />Not the resistant but the spead is the energie using factor. The drag has nothing to do with it. <br /><br />To john<br /><br />Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. <br />Exersising at a higher level with higher hartrates keeps te body after you workout longer using energie(buring call.) But offcause you got to watch out for overtraining yourself. Watch your morningpulse. Is it coming up than your don't recuparate. You need more rest or less intense workouts. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree that it is not the resistance, that's why I mentioned "power" and rowing at 800 calories per hour instead of, say, 500 calories per hour. I can row at a 3 setting at over 900 calories per hour, and I can do it much longer than I can at a 10 setting. Also, by "power" I mean using the legs -- I can row at 900 calories per hour on a 3 setting on a Model C at 20 SPM (or less). So it is not the resistance but the effort or the interval training -- as explained on C2's website vis-a-vis weight loss. Of course, it is also fun to row as long as one can.<br /><br />But, if a person is tired during the day, then most likely they aren't eating enough complex carbohydrates to keep their glycogen levels up or they are over training. When I look at the posts of meters rowed, I notice that some people don't row much at all or are not posting -- but if they only had time to row 2000 meters then they could do that each day trying for better and better PBs and I think they would lose weight doing it that way instead of slowing rowing for 30 minutes -- I mean this by way of illustration of the points C2 makes on its website on how to use interval training to lose weight.<br /><br />Of course, the more muscle one develops the more mitochondria to increase one's metabolism and ipso facto a decrease in fat (assuming that diet does not increase).<br /><br />Mike<br />

[[old] Laupi]

<br />Excersise and food is the combination to look out for. Continue to row but eat onlz half of what you take in currently. Sounds hard as excersise but works wonders. Give it a try. Additionally you might want to try diurethika for good toilet action.<br /><br />Good luck. Keep us posted.<br />

[[old] hjs]

[quote=Steelhead,Dec 29 2005, 09:20 PM]<br />[quote=hjs,Dec 29 2005, 12:07 PM][<br />To stealhead <br /><br />Hi Mark,<br /><br />I also think people who want to loss weight should avoid looking at calorieburing.<br />They should focus on eating healty, exercise regularly, move more in their daily lives and be patient. the weight didn't come on overnight so it also won't come of that way. If you want to loss weight be honest to yourself. You know why your to heavy. <br />For me it is the opposite at the moment, I am losing a bit of weight and I don,t want to. My own foult, I don't eat enough. <br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Steelhead+Dec 29 2005, 08:53 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Dec 29 2005, 08:53 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After looking at the information on weight loss posted by C2, I noticed that it is not so much the number of metres rowed but the intensity of the row -- rowing at 800 calories per hour, for example, instead of 500. [right] </td></tr></table><br />If you are comparing time that is true, but not for the number of meters.<br /><br />Rowing at 500 calories an hour is like a 155 pound man in his 20's running 5 miles at 12 minutes per mile, whereas 800 calories an hour would be the same man running 8 miles in an hour, a pace of 7:30 per mile.<br /><br />However, if both ran 8 miles, then both would be burning the same number of calories, then difference being that the slower pace would be burning them longer.<br /><br />It is the same with rowing. By going a slower pace, you burn the same number of calories over distance, however you are burning them longer. Also you are not as tired. For both of these reasons, an easier pace is better for weight loss than one that is too intense and that would cut down the length of your exercise.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Believe it or not, they both use the same amount of energy and both burn the same number of calories.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are correct that the faster pace burns more calories when the time is the same.<br /><br />However, they both burn the same energy when the distance is the same.<br /><br />Thus, both of them rowing a 10k would be the same total use of energy for each one of them.<br />

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 02:34 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 02:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By going a slower pace, you burn the same number of calories over distance, however you are burning them longer.  Also you are not as tired.  For both of these reasons, an easier pace is better for weight loss than one that is too intense and that would cut down the length of your exercise. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />That's the problem in my opinion with the people that are not losing weight -- they row at too easy a pace for a given time or distance. If they are going to row 30 minutes each day or for 5,000 metres, then they need to burn as many calories as they can during that time or distance; i.e., its better to burn 400 calories in 30 minutes than to burn only 250, if weight loss is the goal, because it takes burning 3500 calories to lose one pound of fat and so at 400 calories burned per 30 minutes, a person will lose one pound about 9 rowing sessions instead of about 14 sessions. Hence, the more calories one can burn in any given time period, the more fat they will lose (and concomitantly, the more muscle they will build). Now, if a person is rowing for distance, then by breaking up the distance into say 500 meter segments and rowing at a 900 or 1000 calories per hour rate (remember rowers who are interested in weight loss are interested in calories burned per metre rowed, not in splits or watts) for 500 meters, then taking a break before beginning the next 500 metres, etc., will result in more total calories burned than by rowing at a leisurely pace for the 5000 meters and only burning half the calories -- it takes more total time, but more calories are used. And, of course, rowing at different paces during a 5,000 metre row would also result in more calories burned and ipso facto fat lost.<br /><br />So, while it is nice to conclude that an easier pace is better for weight loss, this is not the case all the time, and is inconsistent with the advice published by Concept2 for weight loss using the erg. Anecdotally, Concept2's advice is correct based on my experience. I've posted the Concept2 links previously.<br /><br />Now, John, you look like one really skinny, scrawny guy, so I don't know if you can really relate to rowing for weight loss -- and I have noticed in some of your posts that you row millions of meters in a day, so you must really row slow and long; hmm, maybe that is why you are so skinny except that I notice you also say your diet is pretty skimpy, so it's difficult to ascertain why you are so skinny.

[[old] John Rupp]

The number of calories you burn in 30 minutes is not as important as the number of calories you burn in a day. If you row intensely for 30 minutes and then stop, that is less useful than someone rowing the same distance in 40 minutes, as this is the same number of calories over a longer period of time. Also, by rowing easily you can row much farther and you won't be worn out. By being more fresh, you will continue to burn more calories through the rest of the day.<br /><br />In your example, if you burn 400 calories in 30 minutes that is the same as burning 400 calories in 40 minutes. However the one rowing intensely will need to stop, and the one rowing easily will be able to continue on and keep utilizing more calories through the day, whether this be by rowing farther or even just simply moving around more the rest of the day from being more fresh and not being as tired.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Concept2's advice is correct based on my experience. </td></tr></table><br />What is your height and weight then.<br /><br />I eat very well. I probably eat more than most people and more than you do. I used to work in a place where I took a large grocery bag of food for my lunch every day, that was full of bread, fruit, salads and a gallon of water. When my overweight co-worker came in he had a little bag that was smaller than his hand. It's a matter of understanding the type of food to eat, how much, when, and how often. And also it's a matter of understanding what you are doing with your exercise.

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 10:36 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 10:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Believe it or not, they both use the same amount of energy and both burn the same number of calories. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />No you are making a mistake John. Yes the workload itself is te same but the internernal use of energie is not the same. Working at a higher rate is less efficient en thus uses more energie. <br />Running a 100 meters flat out can cost as much of 13 x more energie than joging that same 100 meters. <br /><br />There is another mather. As long as your hartreat is above your restreat your basis metabolism is rased. So you burn more energie. The tougher the work out the more time it costs to get back on restlevel. So thisway a harder workout uses more energie.<br /><br />I have to say that exercising at a lower level directly uses more fat than at a higher level. As a hole that doesn,t matter. Weightloss is nothing more than consuming less than you burn. No matter how is't done. Ofcause I am speaking about a workout of similar workload. For instance a 10 k row.<br /><br />

[[old] DavidW]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 30 2005, 10:53 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 30 2005, 10:53 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 10:36 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 10:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 29 2005, 11:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rowing a certain distance slower costs less energie. So rowing a 10 in in 2.30 is something else as rowing a 1.45 split 10 K. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Believe it or not, they both use the same amount of energy and both burn the same number of calories. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />No you are making a mistake John. Yes the workload itself is te same but the internernal use of energie is not the same. Working at a higher rate is less efficient en thus uses more energie. <br />Running a 100 meters flat out can cost as much of 13 x more energie than joging that same 100 meters. <br /><br />There is another mather. As long as your hartreat is above your restreat your basis metabolism is rased. So you burn more energie. The tougher the work out the more time it costs to get back on restlevel. So thisway a harder workout uses more energie.<br /><br />I have to say that exercising at a lower level directly uses more fat than at a higher level. As a hole that doesn,t matter. Weightloss is nothing more than consuming less than you burn. No matter how is't done. Ofcause I am speaking about a workout of similar workload. For instance a 10 k row. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />hjs is correct, but don't take my word for it. Set the monitor to 500m (or whatever) and row slowly, then do the same distance fast. You will burn more calories doing it fast <br /><br />(eg. my 500m in 2:30.8 theoretically burned 27 calories, whereas my 500m in 1:51.2 theoretically burned 38 calories)

[[old] Citroen]

<!--QuoteBegin-DavidW+Dec 30 2005, 12:51 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DavidW @ Dec 30 2005, 12:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hjs is correct, but don't take my word for it. Set the monitor to 500m (or whatever) and row slowly, then do the same distance fast. You will burn more calories doing it fast <br /><br />(eg. my 500m in 2:30.8 theoretically burned 27 calories, whereas my 500m in 1:51.2 theoretically burned 38 calories) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Define "slowly"? <br /><br />a] low rate, low pace [eg. 20spm @ 2:30.8]<br />b] high rate, low pace [eg. 30spm @ 2:30.8]<br /><br />Define "fast"? <br /><br />a] high rate, high pace [eg. 30spm @ 1:51.2]<br />b] low rate, high pace [eg. 20spm @ 1:51.2]<br /><br />It doesn't make sense to quote pace without rate in this comparison.

[[old] mpukita]

It's pretty simple. The erg will give one calories expended. One can use a calculator like one I just found on Google:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html' target='_blank'>http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitnes ... tml</a><br /><br />... to determine one's minimum necessary calorie intake for one's activity level. These are the calories required to support bodily functions and maintain one's weight <b>with no change</b>.<br /><br />One can do one of two things, or both, to lose weight.<br /><br />1) be more active<br /><br />2) eat less calories of food<br /><br />These are the only two variables one can tweak to achieve a change in one's weight.<br /><br />The key is to be using more calories, through normal body functions <b>and </b>exercise/activity, than one's body needs to maintain its current weight -- so one's body will need to start using fat stores to produce energy because it cannot get enough calories of energy from the food one consumes and the other non-fat energy stores (short term energy stores) in the body.<br /><br /><b>However, one could exercise all day and not lose weight if one consumed enough calories to support normal body functions AND "cover" the energy requirement to support the exercise.</b><br /><br />I see many people here and elsewhere talk about how they're only eating "a little more" than they used to eat before they started rowing, but are still gaining weight. When they explain the amount of rowing they do (let's say 5K/day) and the intensity level they do it (let's say 2:30 pace), it's easy to see why this happens -- it's simple math.<br /><br />For demonstration purposes, let's say this pace gets you 675 calories PER HOUR (taken from the PM3) at a damper setting of 4 (which is about what it registered for me just now).<br /><br />A 5K done at 2:30 pace will take 25:00 on the nose. This 25 minutes will ONLY require (or "burn") about 282 calories (25 minutes per hour divided by 60 minutes in an hour times 675 calories per hour = (25/60)*675 = 281.25) . This is about the calories in 1 cup (a relatively small portion) of a prepared noodle side dish (like the box I just pulled out of the pantry).<br /><br />So, while one would <b>think </b>this is a large amount of exercise if one never exercised at all, it is really a very small amount of activity in terms of energy consumption. Eating just about anything more than what's required to maintain weight would STILL cause a weight gain in this example.<br /><br />Pick up the pace, or erg for much longer, and one can see how one can crank up the calories expended ... it's a very simple equation. However, it takes both work and time ... and committment, patience, and self-control.<br /><br />The equation always balances ... it's scientific fact. If one feels they are doing much exercise, and still gaining weight (or not losing weight as planned), one is either not doing as much exercise as one thinks, or is eating more than one thinks. It is a very informative exercise to log <b>everything </b>one consumes in a day, and tally the calories at day's end. It is amazing how little things add up to big calories. <br /><br />Simply replacing high calorie processed foods and starches with fresh fruits and vegetables can have a huge impact on lowering one's calorie intake. Condiments such as salad dressings have a huge impact on calories consumed, and must be considered when logging one's calories consumption, unless they are low fat or no fat.